We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and Commvault Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"We use the solution across hospitality and healthcare domains. We use it for custom development. It helps us develop a seamless omnichannel for the healthcare industry."
"The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes. It is stable, and it always works. It is also scalable and easy to set up."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"It is a stable solution."
"In terms of the speed of backup, it operates seamlessly, so I'd rate it as excellent... with my daily use and workload, quite honestly I don't even notice when it backs up."
"Commvault is both very stable and scalable."
"Not everyone has agents for everything and Commvault has agents for most products. It's the most complete."
"The most valuable feature is sharing data sets like they're in a private cloud. We call it our "private cloud" because we can share anything that is inside our backup set with our colleagues or with other people, and yet, everything is still in Belgrade, in Serbia. It's not somewhere else on cloud servers. Everything is in our environment."
"This solution gives me the full insight without having to use other products, metrics, or reporting tools."
"Whoever has an Endpoint license can store unlimited data on the cloud."
"The data protection itself is very good compared to other products."
"It is for site-to-site replication. When something goes wrong on your site, you only get 15 minutes before it also goes wrong on your replicated site. There should be some way to be able to say that we want to restore it, but we want to restore it to the version from yesterday. It should support versioning. I would also like to see real-time scanning for advanced threat protection, more straightforward billing, and quicker turnaround on the tech support."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"When it runs, it runs well but when it doesn't run, the solution needs to make it clearer as to why and what the troubleshooting process is. All this would be possible if the error logging was streamlined a bit."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"It would be good if we could replicate the solution to multiple locations simultaneously because we are currently allowed to replicate to just a single location."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"There is room for improvement in its user interface and web console, called Command Center. They are improving it every year so if they continue in that direction, I think it will be a very reliable console."
"They need to improve when it comes to large, video file archiving. They're good, but they have not met my expectations as a customer in this area."
"I would assess the Command Center as a very useful but sometimes difficult tool. It is multipurpose. It has all the features of logging and monitoring, especially for the actual setup. For us, it is easy because we work daily with it, but for customers who only use it once a week, they sometimes have some difficulties. Command Center is not user-friendly for beginners."
"The product's migration process and stability need improvement."
"The local support could be improved."
"Improved documentation and user training resources could contribute to a smoother onboarding process and more effective utilization of the platform's capabilities."
"The tool must improve the 1-Touch recovery of Oracle and Active Directory."
"The retention log feature could be an issue for us and can be improved. The backup schedule can also be better in terms of how you set it up."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while Commvault Cloud is ranked 2nd in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 104 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while Commvault Cloud is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Site Recovery writes "Useful for restoration purposes that ensures that the users get to save a lot of time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Commvault Cloud writes "Provides excellent visibility and helps reduce costs and time". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery, whereas Commvault Cloud is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365, Azure Backup and Zerto. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. Commvault Cloud report.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery as a Service vendors and best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software vendors.
We monitor all Disaster Recovery as a Service reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.